On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 03:59:57PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:

On 2017/1/20 23:04, Mark Rutland wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 09:35:12PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:

quoted

Ding Tianhong (4):
 arm64: arch_timer: Add device tree binding for hisilicon-161010101
   erratum
 arm64: arch_timer: Introduce a generic erratum handing mechanism for
   fsl-a008585
 arm64: arch_timer: Work around Erratum Hisilicon-161010101
 arm64: arch timer: Add timer erratum property for Hip05-d02 and
   Hip06-d03

Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt    |   9 --
Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt             |  43 +++---
.../devicetree/bindings/arm/arch_timer.txt         |   6 +
arch/arm64/boot/dts/hisilicon/hip05.dtsi           |   1 +
arch/arm64/boot/dts/hisilicon/hip06.dtsi           |   1 +
arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h                |  38 ++----
drivers/clocksource/Kconfig                        |  18 +++
drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c               | 150 +++++++++++++++------
8 files changed, 171 insertions(+), 95 deletions(-)

I've picked these up (with a few local cleanups), given that some local
testing, and pushed the result to a branch [1] on my git repo.

There are likely to be clashes with the arm64 tree (e.g. for
silicon-errata.txt), and we're also likely to have more arch timer
updates shortly for the GTDT stuff,

Yes, GTDT patches conflict with this patch set but it's easy to
fix.

Sure. What I meant is that I'd prefer to fix any such conflict myself
(i.e. by basing the GTDT patches atop of this), before passing this
upwards.

quoted

so I think the best bet is for both arm64 and the clocksource tree to
pull that branch for v4.11.

Alternatively, we could take this all through the arm64 tree, if the
clocksource maintainers are happy with that.

Thoughts?

GTDT patch set is adding ACPI support for arch timer, and it's
only used for ARM64 now, in order to handler the conflict easily,
I think take them all through arm64 tree is better

In either case I believe we should be able to handle the conflict. Going
through one tree (i.e. arm64) would simplify things substantially,
though.

This really comes down to what the clocksource maintainers prefer.

(I was working with Fuwei for the GTDT patch set and I hope it's not
blocked by "who will merge the code"...)

Hopefully this is just a formality. :)

Thanks,
Mark.